BITONIO Facts Petitioners-appellees [herein P rivate Respondents] Marino, et. al. (appellees) are duly elected officers of the UST Faculty Union (UST FU). The union has a subsisting five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with its employer, the University of Santo Tomas (UST ). Appellee Collantes, in her capacity as Secretary General of UST FU, posted a notice addressed to all USTFU members announcing a general assembly. Among others, the general assembly was called to elect UST FU's next set of officers. Through the notice, the members were also informed of the constitution of a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to oversee the elections. Some of herein appellants filed a separate petition with the Med-Arbiter, DOLE-NCR, directed against herein appellees and the members of the COMELEC. The petition alleged that the COMELEC w as not constituted in accordance with USTFU's constitution and by-laws (CBL) and that no rules had been issued to govern the conduct of the election. The secretary general of UST, upon the request of the various UST faculty club presidents, issued notices allowing all faculty members to hold a convocation. Denominated as [a] general faculty assembly, the convocation w as supposed to discuss the "state of the unratified UST -UST FU CBA" and "status and election of UST FU officers" The med-arbiter issued a T RO against herein appellees enjoining them from conducting the scheduled election. The general faculty assembly w as held as scheduled. The general assembly w as attended by members of the USTFU and, as admitted by the appellants, also by "non-USTFU members [who] are members in good standing of the UST Academic Community Collective Bargaining Unit." On this occasion, appellants were elected as USTFU's new set of officers by acclamation and clapping of hands. The election of the appellants came about upon a motion of one Atty. Lopez, admittedly not a member of UST FU, that the UST FU CBL and "the rules of the election be suspended and that the election be held [on] that day" Appellees filed the instant petition seeking injunctive reliefs and the nullification of the results of the election. Appellees alleged that the holding of the same violated the T RO issued. Accusing appellants of usurpation, appellees characterized the election as spurious for being violative of UST FU's CBL, specifically because the general assembly resulting in the election of

appellants was not called by the Board of Officers of the UST FU; there was no compliance with the ten-day notice rule required by Section 1, Article VIII of the CBL; the supposed elections were conducted without a COMELEC being constituted by the Board of Officers in accordance with Section 1, Article IX of the CBL; the elections were not by secret balloting as required by Section 1, Article V and Section 6, Article IX of the CBL, and, the general assembly w as convened by faculty members some of whom were not members of USTFU, so much so that non-USTFU members were allowed to vote in violation of Section 1, Article V of the CBL. Appellees filed another urgent ex -parte motion for a TRO, this time alleging that appellants had served the former a notice to vacate the union office. For their part, appellants moved to dismiss the original petition and the subsequent motion on jurisdictional grounds. Both the petition and the motion were captioned to be for "P rohibition, Injunction with P rayer for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order." According to the appellants, the med-arbiter has no jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition, "including the ancillary remedies of restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, which are merely incidental to the main petition for PROHIBITION." Appellants also averred that they now constituted the new set of union officers having been elected in accordance with law after the term of office of appellees had expired. They further maintained that appellees' scheduling of the elections w as illegal because no rules and regulations governing the elections were promulgated as required by UST FU's CBL and that one of the members of the COMELEC w as not a registered member of UST FU. Appellants likewise noted that the elections called by the appellees should have been postponed to allow the promulgation of rules and regulations and to "insure a free, clean, honest and orderly elections and to afford at the same time the greater majority of the general membership to participate." Finally, appellants contended that the holding of the general faculty assembly w as under the control of the Council of College/Faculty Club P residents in cooperation with the UST FU Reformist Alliance and that they received the Temporary Restraining Order issued only on 07 October 1996 and were not aw are of the same on 04 October 1996. Appellants and UST allegedly entered into another CBA covering the period from 01 June 1996 to 31 May 2001. Consequently, appellees again moved for the issuance of a T RO to prevent appellants from making further representations that [they] had entered into a new agreement with UST. Appellees also reiterated their earlier stand that appellants w ere usurping the former's duties and functions and should be stopped from continuing such acts. Over appellants' insistence that the issue of jurisdiction should first be resolved, the med-arbiter issued a T RO directing the respondents to cease and desist from performing any and all acts pertaining to the duties and functions of the officers and directors of USTFU.

In the meantime, appellants claimed that the new CBA w as purportedly ratified by an overwhelming majority of UST 's academic community. For this reason, appellants moved for the dismissal of what it denominated as appellees' petition for prohibition on the ground that this had become moot and academic. Petitioners appealed the med-arbiter's Decision to the labor secretary, who transmitted the records of the case to the Bureau of Labor Relations. Director Bitonio Jr. of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirmed the Decision of Med-Arbiter. The decision rendering the election of UST FU officers and its election results as null and void ab initio. Hence, this Petition. Issue: WoN the election of UST FU officers is null and void ab initio Held: Yes. At the outset, the Court stresses that National Federation of Labor (NFL) v. Laguesma has held that challenges against rulings of the l abor secretary and those acting on his behalf, like the director of labor relations, shall be acted upon by the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over petitions for certiorari. However, inasmuch as the memoranda in the instant case have been filed prior to the promulgation and finality of our Decision in NFL, w e deem it proper to resolve the present controversy directly, instead of remanding it to the Court of Appeals. Having disposed of the foregoing procedural matter, we now tackle the issues in the present case seriatim. Self-organization is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code. Employees have the right to form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual aid and protection. Whether employed for a definite period or not, any employee shall be considered as such, beginning on his first day of service, for purposes of membership in a labor union. Corollary to this right is the prerogative not to join, affiliate with or assist a labor union. Therefore, to become a union member, an employee must, as a rule, not only signify the intent to become one, but also take some positive steps to realize that intent. The procedure for union membership is usually embodied in the union's constitution and bylaws. An employee who becomes a union member acquires the rights and the concomitant obligations that go with this new status and becomes bound by the union's rules and regulations.

Petitioners claim that the numerous anomalies allegedly committed by the private respondents during the latter's incumbency impelled the October 4, 1996 election of the new set of USTFU officers. They assert that such exercise w as pursuant to their right to self-organization. Petitioners' frustration over the performance of private respondents, as well as their fears of a "fraudulent" election to be held under the latter's supervision, could not justify the method they chose to impose their will on the union. Director Bitonio aptly elucidated: The constitutional right to self-organization is better understood in the context of ILO Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and P rotection of Right to Organize), to which the Philippines is signatory. Article 3 of the Convention provides that w orkers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules and to elect their representatives in full freedom, free from any interference from public authorities. The freedom conferred by the provision is expansive; the responsibility imposed on union members to respect the constitution and rules they themselves draw up equally so. The point to be stressed is that the union's CBL is the fundamental law that governs the relationship between and among the members of the union. It is where the rights, duties and obligations, powers, functions and authority of the officers as well as the members are defined. It is the organic law that determines the validity of acts done by any officer or member of the union. Without respect for the CBL, a union as a democratic institution degenerates into nothing more than a group of individuals governed by mob rule. A union election is held pursuant to the union's constitution and bylaws, and the right to vote in it is enjoyed only by union members. A union election should be distinguished from a certification election, which is the process of determining, through secret ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, for purposes of collective bargaining. Specifically, the purpose of a certification election is to ascertain whether or not a majority of the employees wish to be represented by a labor organization and, in the affirmative case, by which particular labor organization. In a certification election, all employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit can vote. Therefore, a union member who likewise belongs to the appropriate bargaining unit is entitled to vote in said election. However, the reverse is not alw ays true; an employee belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit but who is not a member of the union cannot vote in the union election, unless otherwise authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the union. Verily, union affairs and elections cannot be decided in a nonunion activity. The importance of a union's constitution and bylaws cannot be overemphasized. They embody a covenant betw een a union and its members

and constitute the fundamental law governing the members' rights and obligations. As such. Ratified were the terms of the new CBA. as long as they are not contrary to law. good morals or public policy. 1996 election. not the issue of union leadership — a matter that should be decided only by union members in the proper forum at the proper time and after observance of proper procedures. The ratification of the new CBA executed between the petitioners and the University of Santo T omas management did not validate the void October 4.
. the union's constitution and bylaws should be upheld.

Thus. filed a Motion for
2. No. "Management should not be required to handle labor relations matters through employees who are represented by the union with which the company is required to deal and who in the normal performance of their duties may obtain advance information of the company's position with regard to contract negotiations. The public respondent. into one bargaining unit. 110399 August 15. LAGUESMA Facts: Petitioner union filed before DOLE a Petition for Direct Certification or Certification Election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia P oultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. a key question frequently considered is the employee's necessary access to confidential labor relations information. Respondent San Miguel Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal. National Labor Relations Board. Undersecretary Laguesma granted the reconsideration prayed for and directed the conduct of separate certification elections among the supervisors ranked as supervisory levels 1 to 4 (S1 to S4) and the exempt employees in each of the three plants at Cabuyao. If they are not confidential employees. San Fernando and Otis. or other labor relations matters. Cabuyao and San Fernando. Respondent company. determine. San Miguel Corporation Reconsideration with Motion to suspend proceedings. pointing out." It must be borne in mind that Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to guarantee to "all" w orkers the right to self-organization. It is evident that whatever confidential data the questioned employees may handle will have to relate to their functions. the disposition of grievances. granted respondent company's Appeal and ordered the remand of the case to the Med-Arbiter of origin for determination of the true classificati on of each of the employees sought to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee — that is. it can be gleaned that the confidential information said employees have access to concern the employer's internal business operations. do the employees of the three plants constitute an appropriate single bargaining unit. become aw are of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the ''confidential employee rule. Otis. among others. San Fernando and Otis as one bargaining unit. Undersecretary Laguesma.
An Order was issued by the public respondent granting the Motion and modifying the Decision of this Office to the extent that employees under supervisory levels 3 and 4 (S3 and S4) and the so-called exempt employees are not allowed to join the proposed bargaining unit and are therefore excluded from those who could participate in the certification election. in the normal course of their duties. and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. the Med-Arbiter's error in grouping together all three (3) separate plants. and in including supervisory levels 3 and above whose positions are confidential in nature. "an employee may not be excluded from appropriate bargaining unit merely because he has access to confidential information concerning employer's internal business operations and which is not rel ated to the field of labor relations. From the foregoing functions. hence ineligible from joining a union. Hence this petition. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who. the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor. Yes.
.R. 1997 SAN M IGUEL CORPORATION SUPERVISORS AND EXEMPT UNION vs. As held in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Med-Arbiter issued an Order ordering the conduct of certification election among the supervisors and exempt employees of the SMC Magnolia Poultry Products Plants of Cabuyao. Issue: 1. Whether Supervisory employees 3 and 4 and the exempt employees of the company are considered confidential employees. Held: 1. 2. No.Additional 10 G. San Fern ando and Otis." The broad rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interests. Confidential employees are those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity. confidential employees who may be excluded from bargaining unit must be strictly defined so as not to needlessly deprive many employees of their right to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing. Upon petitioner-union's motion. in determining the confidentiality of certain employees. Hence." An important element of the "confidential employee rule" is the employee's need to use labor relations information. The tw o criteria are cumulative. (2) to persons who formulate.

which the collective interest of all the employees. indicate to be best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees."
. consistent with equity to the employer.An appropriate bargaining unit may be defined as "a group of employees of a given employer.

the Labor Relations Division. Upon petition of Buklod ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP ). We find no overlapping by the Bureau of the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter on the question of legality. On the other hand. ADMACOR filed a petition to declare the certification election conducted on May 21. one of several labor unions at ADMACOR'S factory. Moreover. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution w as also denied. The scheduled certification election w as conducted. Several factory w orkers of ADMACOR held a strike. 413 voted for Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SP FL) as their exclusive bargaining agent. There w as nothing in the assailed resolutions which contain any conclusion or ruling by the Bureau that the alleged strike w as legal or illegal. it cannot now be allowed to repudiate the same jurisdiction after failing to obtain affirmative relief. This dismissal w as appealed by ADMACOR to the Bureau of Labor Relations (Bureau) by w ay of a motion for reconsideration. Cebu. originally. it can not be denied that an
. Issue: WoN the certification election is null and void Held: No. the question involving the legality of the strike which w as conducted against ADMACOR is an independent issue. In this petition. We agree with the said ruling of respondent Director upholding the validity of the certification election despite the strike. which petition w as not acted upon by the Labor Relations Division. However. ADMACOR filed a complaint for illegal strike and for illegal picketing with the Regional Arbitration.Additional 11 G. 1989 ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. ADMACOR questions the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations (Bureau) to resolve or determine the factual and legal basis of a strike in relation to the question of representation of employees. In the first place. 1986. The Med-Arbiter dismissed ADMACOR's complaint to annul the May 21. the resolution of which pertains to the Labor Arbiter. FERRER CALLEJA Facts: Petitioner Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation (ADMACOR) is a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the law s of the Philippines. since petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Bureau when it filed its election protest before the Med-Arbiter. to the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
Meanwhile. What w as resolved was whether or not there w as compliance with the procedural requirement set by Section 2. L-77415 June 29. No. 1986 as null and void on the ground that there being a strike by some w orkers in the premises of the factory on the day of the certification election. but did not necessarily make said date an irregular business day of the company to go against the aforesaid Rule. The public respondent Pura Ferrer-Calleja acting as Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations dismissed the appeal of ADMACOR and affirmed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR filed a motion for intervention in the case appealed to the Bureau. (Cebu City) ordered a certification election to be conducted on May 21. These two resolutions are assailed in this petition for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. or illegality of the complained strike. In answer to petition's contention that there being a strike on May 21. Indeed. the respondent Director ruled: The alleged strike and/or picketing of some employees at the company's premises which coincided with the actual conduct of certification election might. despite the strike. The allegation that the Bureau assumed on its own an implied determination of said issue is belied by the fact that the assailed resolutions of respondent Director confined itself to the issue of the validity of the certification election. the day the certification election w as held. said day cannot be considered a regular business day. 1986. the Med-Arbiter and by w ay of appeal. Cebu City. Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code that the election shall be set during a regular business day. on a decision on the twin complaints for illegal strike and illegal picketing was rendered by Labor Arbiter declaring the strike against ADMACOR as illegal. Of the 423 workers who voted.R. a regular business day. It operates a rattan furniture factory at Maguikay. perhaps have affected the actual performance of works by some employees. The motion for intervention filed by the Concerned Workers Association of ADMACOR w as denied for having been filed after the actual certification election had already been conducted. the issue of the validity of the certification election pertains solely to the Bureau of Labor Relations. On the same day. Mandaue City. such day cannot be considered a regular business day. Rule VI. ADMACOR filed a petition for the indefinite resetting of the scheduled certification election. No previous notice of strike was filed by the factory workers with the Bureau of Labor Relations. 1986 certification election and certified SPFL as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of ADMACOR.

and of the Ministry of Labor even attested that the election was peaceful and orderly (pp. In the "Minutes of the Certification Election among the Rank and File Employees of Asian Design Manufacturing Corp. the representatives of the contending unions. petitioner seeks exception to the rule that an employer has no standing to question a certification election. We reiterate the rule that such concern over the validity of certification election must come from the employees themselves. 413 voted for SPFL as its exclusive bargaining agent. On the pretext that the issue deposited in this petition is the lack of jurisdiction of the Bureau in dismissing its protest against the certification election despite the pendency of the case before the Labor Arbiter on the validity of the strike. 79-83. no valid reason to annul the certification election. There is thus.
.actual election was conducted on said date where. of the 423 w orkers who voted.". Rollo) and none of the parties registered any protest on any matter concerning the election proceedings.

Additional 12 DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v Sec of Labor Facts: Med-Arbiter certified the Divine Word University Employees Union (DWUEU) as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the Divine Word University. DWUEU. the DWUEU -ALU pursued its second notice of strike. Instead. consonant with the agreement. DWUEU-ALU sent a follow -up letter reiterating its request for a conference and w arning the University against committing acts of interference through its various meetin gs with both the academic and nonacademic employees regarding their union affiliation and activities. At the conference. the University filed with the Of fice of the Secretary of Labor a motion praying that said Office assume jurisdiction over the dispute or certify the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on the
.” Said Order prompted the DWUEU-ALU to file with the Secretary of Labor an
urgent motion seeking to enjoin Milado from further acting on the matter of the certification election. through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). the University failed to appear. DWUEU submitted its collective bargaining proposals. The University filed a motion for the reconsideration of said Order.” after he found the petition to be “well -supported in fact and in law. The Secretary also designated the NCMB to hear the case and to submit its report thereon. the University persisted in maintaining silence. Urmeneta w rote a letter addressed to the University unilaterally withdrawing the CBA proposals. The University replied and requested a preliminary conference. The conferences which were held after the filing of the notice of strike led to the conclusion of an agreement betw een the University and DWUEU-ALU. however. which w as registered earlier that day. On said date. The NCMB conducted hearings on the case. However. These were ignored by the University. Despite the letter. the preliminary conference w as cancelled. Not having heard from the University. Divine Word University Independent Faculty and Employees Union (DWUIFEU). " The same Order dismissed not only the case filed by DWUEU -ALU for unfair labor practice on the ground of the union’s failure to prove the commission of the unfair labor practice acts specifically complained of but also the complaint filed by the University for unfair labor practices and illegal strike for “obvious lack of merit brought about by its utter failure to submit evidence” The said Order pronounced as untenable the University's claim that the assumption Order earlier issued by the Office of the Secretary of Labor merely held in abeyance the holding of a certification election and that the representation issue w as not deemed consolidated by virtue of the said assumption Order. its representative phoned in a request for the resetting of the conference purportedly because its Board of Directors had failed to muster a quorum. issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute and directing all striking w orkers to report back to w ork within twenty-four (24) hours and the management to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the w ork stoppage. submitted its collective bargaining proposals. The Labor Secretary granted said motion and directed Milado to hold in abeyance any and all certification electi on proceedings at the University pending the resolution of the labor dispute. However. marathon conciliation conferences were conducted but to no avail. On the same day. Hence.P resident. Med-Arbiter acting on the University’s petition for certification election. the conference w as rescheduled. the Office of the Secretary called for a series of conciliation and mediation conferences between the parties. two days before the scheduled conference. It w as opposed by the DWUEU-ALU. it turned out that an hour before the agreement w as concluded. Thereafter. discrimination and coercion on (sic) employees. since the DWUEU-ALU had filed a second notice of strike charging the University with violation of the return -towork order of the Secretary of Labor and unfair labor practices such as dismissal of union officers. issued an Order directing the conduct of a certification election to be participated in by DWUEU-ALU and “no union. specifically. Hence. filed a motion for intervention alleging that it had “at least 20% of the rank and file employees” of the University. Consequently. after so informing ALU’s Eastern Visayas Vice. DWUEU’s resigned vice -president Mr. After almost three years. In view of the University’s intransigence. However. then Secretary of Labor Drilon. On the other hand. the University had filed a petition for certification election with the office of the Department of Labor and Employment. the University agreed to submit its proposals on how to settle amicably the labor dispute. coercion of employees and illegal suspension. DWUEU-ALU filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice acts. Four days later. The Labor Secretary’s Order where the issue of strong disagreement among the parties on the question of representation was deemed subsumed in the labor dispute certified for compulsory arbitration. The University once again failed to appear. DWUEU-ALU. or necessarily related thereto” in his Order and the following cases were “subsumed or consolidated to the labor dispute. The Secretary consolidated “the entire labor dispute including all incidents arising therefrom. refusal to bargain. which had by then affiliated with the Associated Labor Union. requested a conference with the University for the purpose of continuing the collective bargaining negotiations.

not by entering into an agreement. Consequently. Secretary Drilon issued an Order reiterating the Order which assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. the Acting Secretary ruled that said motion w as in effect denied when the petition for certification election filed by the University w as dismissed in the Order. He ordered all striking workers to return to work within 24 hours and the University to accept them back under the same terms and conditions of employment. the University filed a Petition for Certification with (sic) Regional Office.” the University should be “declared in default. In this regard. While there is no question that the petition for certification election w as filed by the herein petitioner after almost four years from the time of the certification election and. He noted the fact that the collective bargaining proposals of the DWUEU had not been validly withdrawn as the union’s Vice . is patently negotiating in bad faith. the University admitted the existence of the deadlock when a provision w as incorporated in the agreement. deemed the issues raised in the notice of strike as “subsumed in this case”. join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. This Office cannot tolerate such ac tuations by the University. the Acting Secretary found that: “The records indicate otherwise Conciliation meetings were conducted precisely to discuss the CBA proposals the Union submitted to the University. there is no question as to the timeliness of the petition. The records indicate that no response w as made by the University. As a matter of fact. An employer who is requested to bargain collectively may file a petition for certification election any time except upon a clear showing that one of these tw o instances exists: (a) the petition is filed within one year from the date of issuance of a final certification election result or (b) w hen a bargaining deadlock had been submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. and enjoined the parties to cease and desist from any act that may “aggravate the employer -employee relationship. The surreptitious filing of the petition and at the same time cunningly entering into an agreement which required the Union to submit a renewed CBA proposal. The Office of the Secretary of Labor received a Resolution passed by the students of the University urging said Office’s assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute and the earliest resolution of the case. if it believed that such issue was valid. the problem appears to lie in the fact that the Secretary of Labor had found that a bargaining deadlock exists. ordered the Director of Regional Office to hear the issues raised in said notice of strike and to submit his findings and recommendations within ten days from submission of the case by the parties. Hence. A “deadlock” is defined as the “counteraction of things producing entire stoppage: a state of inaction or of neutralization caused by the opposition of persons or of factions (as in government or a voting body): standstill. as the petitioner did in this case. the Acting Secretary believed that it did not “exculpate the University from the duty to bargain with the Union” because the collective bargaining processes had been “set in motion fro m the time the CBA proposals w as (sic) received by the University until the impasse took place on account of its failure to reply to the Union’s letters pursuing its CBA P roposals. The Agreement only served to falsely heighten the expectations of the Union and this Office that a
mutually acceptable settlement of the dispute was in the offing.P resident had resigned and the withdrawal w as signed only by three of the eight members of the Executive Board of said union. petitioner’s undue interest in the resolution of the DWU -IFEU’s motion for intervention becomes significant since a certification election is the sole concern of employees except where the employer itself has to file a petition for certification election. Issue: WoN the orders of Sec. Drilon were violative of the “constitutional right of employees to self-organization which includes the right to form.” On the University’s assertion that no negotiations took place insofar as the collective bargaining proposals are concerned. On account of the deadlock regarding the CBA proposals. The University should have candidly and timely raised the issue of representation. the Office of the Secretary of Labor may rightfully impose the Union’s collective bargaining agreement proposals motu proprio.” The Acting Secretary then concluded that for reneging on the agreement and for its “reluctance and subscription to legal delay. But once an employer has filed said petition. The uncooperative posture of the University to respond and continue with the negotiations could very well be explained when one (1) hour prior to the start of the conciliation.” He also maintained that since under the circumsta nces the University cannot claim deprivation of due process. On the University’s contention that the motion for intervention of the DWU-IFEU w as not resolved. “dismissed” for lack of merit the University’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Order. the students and their parents.” There is a deadlock when there is a “complete blocking or stoppage resulting from the
. Granting that the withdrawal w as valid.ground that the strike affected not only the University but also its other academic and non-academic employees." Held: No. Any uncalled-for concern on the part of the employer may give rise to the suspicion that it is batting for a company union.” Acting Secretary of Labor. it w as agreed that the Union submit a renewed CBA proposal which it did. therefore. its active role ceases and it becomes a mere bystander. the University had recourse to instant petition.

” A thorough study of the records reveals that there w as no “reasonable effor t at good faith bargaining” specially on the part of the University.” The word is synonymous with the word impasse which.action of equal and opposed forces. does not conclude in agreement between the parties.
. the deadlock of a jury or legislature. as. Its indifferent attitude tow ards collective bargaining inevitably resulted in the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement. despite noble intentions. within the meanin g of the American federal labor laws. “presupposes reasonable effort at good faith bargaining which.

all cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) having jurisdiction over the w orkplace of the complainant. Executive Labor Arbiter Guanio handed down an Order denying the motion to dismiss. In this case. P rior to such expiration. submits through conduct manifesting satisfaction with the same until after the trial or abides by it until the matter has proceeded to a hearing. hereinafter quoted and which speaks merely of improper venue not objected to before or at the time of the filing of the position paper. without reservation. Inc. After the submission of the Position P apers. Section 1. UFE-DFA. a hearing on the merits w as conducted by Executive Labor Arbiter. Nestl deemed the strike illegal and terminated from employment all the union officers for allegedly instigating the same and knowingly participating in it. No. These CBAs were to expire on 30 June 1987. condemnation as it is a crude legal maneuver." Petitioners filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground that venue is improperly laid. the UFE-DFA panel declared a deadlock. covering four (4) bargaining units of the latter. Petitioners appealed this order to the public Respondent. grounded on pure technicality and unfavorable to labor.R. in the hearing on the merits of the case. P ublic respondent promulgated a resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground that petitioners has waived the defense of improper venue. except eighty-three (83) officers and thirty-three (33) members. rather. designed to delay the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. 98363. The rule on the construction of labor laws abhors it. Cabuyao and Cagayan de Oro work locations of Nestl. certain of the indubitability of his defense. 1992. the
. When juxtaposed with paragraph (c). Petitioners filed the instant petition. It is settled that objections to the venue are deemed w aived if a defendant. One of the issues raised by herein petitioners in their Position P aper is improper venue. (2) Alabang/Cabuyao. Although petitioners invoked the said ground in their P osition P aper. They allege that under Section 1. Our reading of the Revised Rules of the NLRC further reveals that no motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue may be allowed to interrupt or delay the proceedings. inter alia. Their motion for the reconsideration of the resolution having been denied. to which herein private respondents filed an Opposition. Alabang. One who is so would incur no delay in pursuing the defense to end the litigation and prevent further waste of precious time and expense. INC v. the striking officers and members of UFE-DFA voluntarily and unconditionally offered to return to work Nestl admitted all the striking employees. and more specifically in the reception of the testimonies of three (3) witnesses for the herein private respondents. This belated aw akening from deep slumber and deafening silence deserves no sympathy but. Held: No. namely: (1) Makati. The UFE-DFA and the herein 28 individual private respondents filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Petitioners filed a Reply to the Opposition and the private respondents filed a Rejoinder. Rule V. Then Secretary Franklin Drilon of the Department of Labor and Employment issued an Order enjoining the UFE-DFA from resorting to any strike and directing the parties to cease and desist from committing any and all acts that w ould aggravate the situation. venue then w as improperly laid insofar as they are concerned. reinstatement to former or substantially equivalent positions and damages. with neither qualification nor condition. that they belatedly filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. a complaint for unfair labor practice. and they (respondents) even reserved their right to cross-examine later said witnesses. illegal dismissal. The complaints should have been filed in the RAB in Cagayan de Oro City and in the RAB in Region IV. (3) Cebu/Davao and (4) Cagayan de Oro. As observed by the public respondent NLRC. it w as only four (4) months later — and after they had participated. Manila. in the hearings on the merit of this case before the ELA. UFE-DFA filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Issue: WoN the case should be dismissed because of improper venue. Since 13 of the 20 individual complainants were employed in the Cagayan de Oro plant and 9 were employed in the Cabuyao plant of Nestl. We agree with the public respondent that petitioners w aived the defense of improper venue. both UFE-DFA and Nestl negotiating panels met to draft the ground rules for the negotiation of new CBAs. June 15. they did not pursue it with the diligence of a party confidently if not absolutely. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM ISSION Facts: Private respondent Union of Filipro Employees (UFE-DFA) had four (4) Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) with petitioner Nestl Philippines. declared and staged a strike at the Makati.Addtl 13 G. Even before the case was decided. NESTLE PHILIPPINES. This notwithstanding. petitioners herein "participated. included in this number are the twenty-eight (28) individual private respondents The said employees were issued separate letters of termination by Nestl. where no less than three of the
complainants witnesses had already given their testimonies. Rule V of the new Rules of the NLRC. After sixteen (16) negotiation meetings. the agreement on the said rules was eventually signed .

has suppletory application. the case may be filed with the RAB. It is not denied that Nestl has its principal office in the National Capital Region. Under the aforequoted rule. and his adverse party must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to overburden the former. it is evident that the rule is intended for the exclusive benefit of the worker. it is economic as well.intention of the Rules to exclude improper venue as a ground for a motion to dismiss and to consider it as a mere formal procedural defect appears indubitable.
. however. as the case may be. expedi tious and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. The application of this rule in this case would be the most logical step to take to prevent multiplicity of suits which w ould only delay and render expensive the settlement of the dispute in violation of the basic rules of construction set forth in Section 2. Rul e 4 thereof. pursuant to Section 3. The more appropriate rule on venue under the Rules of Court is paragraph (b). The worker. the nearest governmental machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal. All of the indi vidual private respondents are members of the UFE-DFA. Rule I of the Revised Rules of the NLRC. or with the RAB of either Cagayan de Oro City (Region X) or the RAB of Region IV. In such instances. It must be stressed. NCR." We agree with private respondents that since paragraph (a) of the abovequoted Section speaks of the complainant/petitioner’s workplace. being the economically-disadvantaged party — whether as complainant/petitioner or as respondent. All are aggrieved by the decision of Nestl to dismiss them. Rule I of the Revised Rules of the NLRC. Rule I of the Revised Rules of the NLRC provides: "These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution and the Labor Code of the Philippines and to assist the parties in obtaining just. For one. This being the case. recourse should be made to the Rules of Court which. that this section does not constitute a complete rule on venue in cases cognizable by Labor Arbiters. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code. It is likewise admitted that the UFE-DFA and six (6) of the individual complainants are residents in areas within the National Capital Region. the worker may w aive the benefit." Section 2. including its implementing rules and regulations. shall be resolved in favor of labor. Section 2. it cannot apply to instances where the complainants are labor unions or where a single act of an employer gives rise to a common cause of action to many of its employees working in different branches or w orkplaces of the former. The reason for this is not only convenience.

while the labor arbiter is duty bound to resolve all complaints referred to him for arbitration and. Cruz v. ad voluntatem absent themselves during semestral breaks. W hile the complaints might not have disclosed the identities of the individual employees claiming monetary benefits. For this. the instant petition. not only herself. It is clear from the . therefore. they cannot be faulted nor can they be begrudged that which is due them under the law. 6. But more apropos is the ruling of this Court in University of P angasinan Faculty Union v. Petitioner's contention that the cases filed by Consuelo Abad as its president should affect. especially because the University appears to have failed to demand a bill of particulars during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. they are constrained to take mandatory leave from w ork. in the case at bar. The uncontroverted allegation of the
petitioner is that it is the holder of Registration Certificate No. .Addtl addtl 1 G. among others. 64821-23 January 29. Indeed. To a certain extent.R. Held: No. for nonpayment of extra loads on (Anniversary celebration). and for prompt and accurate computation of benefits and the payment of ecolas. a case involving the same parties as in the instant petition and dealing with a complaint filed by the petitioner seeking. he may be compelled by mandamus to decide them (although not in any particular way or in favor of anyone). presented its individual members' grievances through proper proceedings. law that it contemplates a "no w ork" situation where the employees voluntarily absent themselves. 4. Issue: WoN the mandamus must be granted. 5. and extra loads during typhoons "Nitang" and "Osang". certainly do not. Although this w as stated within the context of collective bargaining. 2. The petitioner's members received their regular salaries during this period. As succinctly provided in this section. no pay" principle does not apply in the instant case. it applies equally well to cases. The Court held therein: . the private respondent can specif y dates when no classes would be held. Hence. such technical defect should not be taken against the claimants.
. . 3. correctly filed the complaints even if some of them involved rights and interest purely or exclusively appertaining to individual employees. "[w ]hat should be borne in mind is that the interest of the individual w orker can be better protected on the whole by a strong union aw are of its moral and legal obligations to represent the rank and file faithfully and secure for them the best w ages and working terms and conditions. the payment of emergency cost of living allowances for a semestral break. Petitioners. through its president. therefore. Nos." On account of this requirement. but all the other union members similarly situated as she was. for nonpayment of all ecolas to faculty members who were also members of the union. University of P angasinan and NLRC. anyone who wishes to avail of the remedy of mandamus must state in a verified petition "the facts with certainty. . To quote then Associate Justice Teehankee in Heirs of T eodelo M. Corollarily. for nonpayment of salary differentials for summer The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioner's complaints for violation of certain labor standards law s but requiring respondent university to integrate the cost of living allowance into the basic pay of the covered employees and reminding it to pay its employees at intervals not exceeding sixteen (16) days. The "No w ork. petitioner filed the following complaints against the University of Pangasinan before the Arbitration branch of the NLRC in Dagupan City: 1. CIR. it was not the intention of the framers of the law to allow employers to withhold employee benefits by the simple expedient of unilaterally imposing "no work" days and consequently avoiding compliance with the mandate of the law for those days. mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases and showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner is required. such as the present wherein the union. NLRC affirmed the decision of Executive Labor Arbiter. . its president. petitioner possessed the legal personality to sue and be sued under its registered name. for nonpayment of benefits and emergency cost of living allow ance (ecola) to part-time teachers. having been registered with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment." The University's contention that petitioner had no legal personality to institute and prosecute money claims must. Rather. it appearing that she signed the complaints "for and in behalf of the University of Pangasinan Faculty Union. is well taken. Surely. 9865-C. for nonpayment of ecolas. fail. . for violation of Wage Order No. . . we find that the peculiar circumstances in this case do not merit the issuance of the writ of mandamus. 1993 UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION vs. and 7. Consuelo Abad. NLRC Facts: On various dates. for nonpayment of all ecolas to instructors. 1 and delayed payment of salaries. As such. The petitioner appealed the said decision to the NLRC.

are confidential employees. 1992 PHILIPS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. P ursuant thereto. it w as agreed upon. Sales Force. are qualified to join a union. marketing managers.R.Addtl addtl 2 G. EDP and Financial Systems are included within the rank and file bargaining unit. setting asidebthe appealed decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter and declaring respondent company's Service Engineers. Issue: Whether or not the subject employees may be part of the existing bargaining unit for the rank and file employees of PIDI. NLRC rendered the questioned decision. No. As such. they assist and act in a confidential capacity to. sales personnel and confidential employees in the coverage of the bargaining unit would be submitted for arbitration. the sales force. sales representatives as to their inclusion or exclusion in the bargaining unit. it had a total of six (6) CBAs with private respondent Philips Employees Organization -FFW (P EO-FFW). division secretaries. NLRC Facts: PIDI is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of electronic products. all Staff of General Management. among others. in holding that they are included in the bargaining unit for the rank and file employees of PIDI. secretaries of audit.A. the supervisors referred to in R." As the parties failed to agree on a voluntary arbitrator. NLRC-NCR-00-11-0393687 w as filed in 1987. petitioner PIDI filed the instant petition. Sales Force. This violates. As regards the service engineers and the sales representatives. Personnel and Industrial Relations Department. 875. all w orkers. EDP. the BLR endorsed the petition to the Executive Labor Arbiter of the NCR for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article 228 of the Labor Code. vs. or have access to confidential matters of. On the main issue raised before Us. all these employees. The confidential employees are the division secretaries of light/telecom/data and consumer electronics. confidential employees. financial system are confidential employees and as such are hereby deemed excluded in the bargaining unit. It is hereby declared that the Division Secretaries and all Staff of general management.
. No. tw o (2) points which respondent NLRC likewise arbitrarily and erroneously ruled upon agreed to be discussed. that the subject of inclusion or exclusion of service engineers. Held: Yes. the five (5) previous CBAs betw een PIDI and P EO-FFW explicitly considered them as confidential employees. temporary employees and sales representatives w ere excluded from the bargaining unit. security personnel were no longer disqualified from joining or forming a union. Their classification as such is not seriously disputed by PEO-FFW. Secretaries of Audit. or form part of a bargaining unit. the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form. and the staff of both the General Management and the Personnel Department. PEO-FFW appealed from the decision to the NLRC. At the time Case No. impairs and impedes the service engineers' and the sales representatives' constitutional right to form unions or associations and to self-organization. By the very nature of their functions. were specifically excluded from the bargaining unit. obstructs. Secretaries of Audit." In the first place. 88957 June 25. as perceived by the NLRC. Even if the issue w as. fiscal and financial system manager and audit and EDP manager. division secretaries. In the first CBA. Since 1971. P EO-FFW filed a petition before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) praying for an order "directing the parties to select a voluntary arbitrator in accordance with its rules and regulati ons. the NLRC practically forced them to become members of P EO-FFW or to be subject to its sphere of influence. Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision ordering the respondent to conduct a referendum to determine the will of the service engineers. EDP and Financial Systems are included within the rank and file bargaining unit. with the exception of the service engineers and the sales force personnel. together with the managerial employees. secretaries of the corporate planning and business manager.
Its motion for the reconsideration of this decision having been denied by the NLRC. a registered labor union and the certified bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of P IDI. In the sixth CBA. assist or join a labor union equally applies to them. In the second to the fifth CBAs. a palpable error w as committed by it in ruling that under the law. it being the certified bargaining agent for the subject bargaining unit. Firstly. INC. security guards. it is quite obvious that respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter and in decreeing that P IDI's "Service Engineers. persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. Personnel and Industrial Relations Department. except managerial employees and security personnel. confidential employees and heads of small units. personnel and industrial relations department. indeed. temporary employees and security personnel. all Staff of General Management. still.

supervisors who were members of existing labor organizations on the effectivity of said RA 6715 were explicitly authorized to "remain therein. They appealed to the Court of Appeals. and as to said terms fixed by law. i. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prose cution thereof. 250. government-owned or controlled corporations had the duty to bargain collectively and were otherwise subject to the obligations and duties of employers in the private sector. members of labor organizations composed of rank-and-file employees. repealing the Industrial Peace Actplaced employees of all categories in government-owned or controlled corporations without distinction within the Civil Service. and hinder
. the GSIS Employees Association. therefore. 248. They argued that when the so called "1973 Constitution" took effect. tw o (2) criminal cases for violation of the Industrial Peace Act were lodged against them in the City Court of Cebu. respectively." The correctness of the petitioners' theory that unfair labor practices ceased to be crimes and w ere deemed merely administrative offenses in virtue of the Labor Code. be processed like any ordinary labor disputes. the Code now pertinently reads as follows: ART. were obliged to maintain their union membership in good standing for the duration of the agreement as a condition for their continued employment in the GSIS. The appellants moved for reconsideration. 70. P ablo Arizala and Sergio Maribao w ere. Concept of unfair labor practice. respectively. and eventuated in a judgment affirming the convictions of all four appellants. too. are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect. Both criminal actions resulted in the conviction of the accused in separate decisions. and the Chief of the Billing Section of said Division. the case of Arizala and Maribao w as still pending in the Court of Appeals and that of Joven and Bulandus. that all employees who. They pointed out further that the criminal sanction in the Industrial Peace Act no longer appeared in the Labor Code. the petitioners occupied supervisory positions in the GSIS. As thus amended. Unfair labor practice complaints shall. at the time of the execution of said agreement. the appellants ceased to fall within the coverage of the
Industrial Peace Act and should thus no longer continue to be prosecuted and exposed to punishment for a violation thereof. Nos. And under the Implementing Rules of RA 6715.R. 1980. cannot be gainsaid. Hence. Demands were made on all four of them to resign from the GSIS Employees Association. COURT OF APPEALS Under the Industrial Peace Act. The petitioners appear to be correct in their view of the disappearance from the law of the prohibition on supervisors being members of labor organizations composed of employees under their supervision. the Assistant Chief of the Accounting Division (sometimes Acting Chief in the absence of the Chief) and the Assistant Chief of the Field Service and Non-Life Insurance Division (and Acting Division Chief in the absence of the Chief). Held: But EO 111 restored the right to organize and to negotiate and bargain of employees of "government corporations established under the Corporation Code. Leonardo Joven and Felino Bulandus were. and prescribed criminal sanctions for breach of the prohibition. The agreement contained a "maintenance-of-membership" clause. in the Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS. It w as under the regime of said Industrial Peace Act that the GSIS became bound by a collective bargaining agreement executed between it and the labor organization representing the majority of its employees. approved on May 1.. Henceforth. it shall be considered merely as an administrative offense rather than a criminal offense. The Labor Code (PD 442) allowed supervisors (if not managerial) to join rank-and-file unions. and apparently RA 6715.-The concept of unfair labor practice is hereby modified. The Act also prohibited supervisors to become. were members of the union or became members thereafter. 43633-34 September 14. rules and regulations" and hence.G. the present petition for review on certiorari. 1990 ARIZALA vs. The appeals were consolidated on motion of the appellants. of the same Central Visayas Regional Office of the GSIS. The Appellate Court denied their plea for reconsideration. or continue to be. they were prohibited to strike to obtain changes thereof. that since the provisions of that constitution and of the Labor Code subsequently promulgated. no longer subject of collective bargaining. Issue: whether or not the petitioners' criminal liability for a violation of the Industrial P eace Act may be deemed to have been obliterated in virtue of subsequent legislation and the provisions of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. granted to all government employees the right of collective bargaining or negotiation except as regards those terms of their employment which were fixed by law. Consequently. But unfair labor practices were declared to be crimes again by later amendments of the Labor Code effected by Batas P ambansa Blg. — Unfair labor practices violate the right of w orkers and employees to self organization. the Chief of the Accounting Division. in view of their supervisory positions. There appears to be no dispute that at that time. Article 250 of the Labor Code did provide as follows: ART." And EO 180.e. and provided that the terms and conditions of their employment were to be "governed by the Civil Service Law. They refused to do so. pending decision in the City Court of Cebu.

but is explicitly allowed. as amended (the Agricultural Land Tenancy Law of 1954) which penalized pre-threshing by either agricultural tenant or his landlord. . that the maintenance by supervisors of membership in a rank-and-file labor organization even after the enactment of a statute imposing a prohibition on such membership. 6715. 1199.A. T o the same effect and in even more unmistakable language is P eople v. No. that there w as no law punishing the act charged-a reference to the fact that Republic Act No. are authorized to "remain therein. under present law. this Court upheld the dismissal. supervisors who were already members of a rank-and-file labor organization at the time of the effectivity of R." It seems plain.. finding that an unfair labor practice was committed having been first obtained in the preceding paragraph. Consequently. unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein provided.. xxx xxx xxx
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. The decisive consideration is that at present.the promotion of healthy and stable labor management relations. No criminal prosecution under this title may be instituted without a final judgment. Almuete where the defendants-appellees were charged under section 39 of Republic Act No. in other words. 1199 had already been superseded by the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963 which instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject to certain conditions. saying: The repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal
. is not only not a crime. They sought and secured a dismissal on the ground. On appeal by the Government. among others.

62386. among others. 7795.ADLO. Finding. which the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of merit. [G. and not involvement in the management thereof. v. BENECO filed the instant petition for certiorari. et al. and.G. Canvass of the votes showed that BELU garnered forty-nine (49) of the eighty-three (83) "valid" votes cast. that pending resolution by the NLRC are tw o cases it filed against BENECO involving bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative. .R. Thus. assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining. et al. inter alia. the fact that the members-employees of petitioner do not participate in the actual management of the cooperative does not make them eligible to form. Inc. The above contentions are untenable. With respect. vs. 1988] and San Jose City Electric Service Cooperative. Nos. May 31. et al. [G. the medarbiter dismissed the protest. much less. No. that the issue as to whether or not memberconsumers who are employees of BENECO could form. . Issue: Whether or not respondent BELU should be the sole and exclusive bargaining representtative of the rank and file employees of BENECO.ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of BENECO at Alapang. 1989. join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing because they are members and joint owners of the cooperative. La Trinidad. that the pendency of these cases bars any representation question.R. Young. BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. collective bargaining and negotiation as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and applicable statutes. that BENECO has in its employ two hundred and fourteen (214) rank and file employees. No. Ferrer Calleja. The Court's ruling in the Davao City case that members of cooperative cannot join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining w as based on the fact that as members of the cooperative they are co-owners thereof. and. BENECO. The med-arbiter issued an order giving due course to the petition for certification election. [G.1988] and reiterated in the cases ofBatangas-Electric Cooperative Labor Union v. they are not eligible to be members of any labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. and.R. on the other hand." Petitioner submitted a certification showing that only four (4) employees are not members of BENECO and insisted that only these employees are eligible to vote in the certification election. 77231.
Thereafter BENECO formalized its verbal manifestation by filing a P rotest. that no certification election has been conducted for the last 12 months. Inc. supra]. that one hundred and ninety-eight (198) or 92.R. assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with petitioner. all members thereof cannot form. P rior to the conduct thereof BENECO's counsel verbally manifested that "the cooperative is protesting that employees who are members-consumers are being allowed to vote when . As such. HON. Ministry of Labor and Employment. Benguet alleging. Inc. Ferrer-Calleja. to employees who are neither members nor co-owners of the cooperative they are entitled to exercise the rights to self -organization. they cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for "certainly an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. 79025. filed a motion to dismiss the petition claiming that it is a non-profit electric cooperative engaged in providing electric services to its members and patron -consumers in the City of Baguio and Benguet P rovince. the med-arbiter limited the election among the rank and file employees of petitioner who are non -members thereof and without any involvement in the actual ownership of the cooperative." [Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City. that the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are not eligible to form. 70880 and 74560 November 9.. No. v. vs. An opposition to the petition was filed by the Beneco Employees Labor Union (BELU) contending that it was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the subject workers pursuant to an order issued by the med-arbiter. PURA FERRERCALLEJA Beneco Worker's Labor Union-Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (hereinafter referred to as BWLU. Whereupon BENECO filed with this Court a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and /or restraining order. September 26. that there is no existing collective bargaining representative of the rank and file employees sought to represented by BWLU. The above contention of respondent union is based on the errone ous
. that there is no collective bargaining agreement in the cooperative. BELU and BENECO appealed from this order but the same was dismissed for lack of merit. irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative. 1989] wherein the Court had stated that the right to collective bargaining is not available to an employee of a cooperative who at the same time is a member and co-owner thereof. INC. Contrary to respondents' claim.5% of these employees have supported the filing of the petition. which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. The ordered certification election w as held. assist or join a labor union has been answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court. to vote in this certification election. However. December 29. et al. Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) director P ura Ferrer-Calleja affirmed the med-arbiter's order and certified BELU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank and file employees of BENECO. however. Held: The issue of whether or not employees of a cooperative are qualified to form or join a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining has already been resolved and clarified in the case of Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City.

the minutes of the certification election [Annex "C" of the Petition: Rollo. in her order dated September 2. 1985. However. Ferrer-Calleja. 6. 175. Rollo. 28] show that a total of eightythree (83) employees were allowed to vote and of these. p. While cooperatives may exercise some of the rights and privileges given to ordinary corporations provided under existing laws. Pres. It is important to note that. Decree No. members of cooperatives have rights and obligations different from those of stockholders of ordinary corporations. 12. Thus. p. the only employees of petitioner cooperative eligible to form or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining [Annex "A" of the Petition. 1986 is still null and void since even those who w ere already members of the cooperative at the time of the issuance of the med-arbiter's order. and 8.
. forty-nine (49) voted for respondent union. 22]. that the Court held in the Davao City case that members-employees thereof cannot form or join a labor union for purposes of collective bargaining. such cooperatives enjoy other privileges not granted to the latter [See Sections 4. supra]." the certification election held on October 1. Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City v. Similarly. p. and therefore cannot claim that they were forced to join the union were allowed to vote in the election.presumption that membership in a cooperative is the same as ownership of stocks in ordinary corporations. It was precisely because of the special nature of cooperatives. medarbiter Elnora V. even if We agree with respondent union's contention that the thirty seven (37) employees who were originally non members of the cooperative can still vote in the certification election since they were only "forced and compelled to join the cooperative on pain of disciplinary action. 5. therefore. Balleras made a specific finding that there are only thirtyseven (37) employees of petitioner who are not members of the cooperative and who are.

. the other for non academic or administrative." At the pre-election conference. Yes. . For its part. associate professors and assistant professors are "high-level employees" "whose functions are normally considered policy determining." consequently. should embrace all the regular rank-and-file employees. they should. At a conference thereafter held in the Bureau. and Visayas. Another registered labor union. . Extension and P rofessional Staff (REPS). HON. whether or not." The Director thus commanded that a certification election be "conducted
among rank-and-file employees. Claiming to have a membership of 3. It observed in this connection that the Research. Alleging that its membership covers both academic and non -academic personnel. as intervenor in the certification election proceeding. Manila.Addtl addtl 5 G. 96189 July 14. it sought the holding of a certification election among all said non -academic employees of the University of the Philippines. Held: 1. conditions and rules governing these employee groups. should not be deemed part of the organizational unit. teaching and non -teaching" in all four autonomous campuses of the UP. June. Section (1) of the Implementing Guidelines of Executive Order No. the University. the "All UP Workers' Union. in fact. Director Calleja subsequently promulgated an Order resolving the "sole issue" of "whether or not professors. The motion for reconsideration w as denied. of the University of the Philippines. The ONAPUP quite categorically made of record its posi tion. whether or not professors. rank-and-file employees . has manifested . highly confidential in nature. the "Organizati on of Non-Academic Personnel of UP" (ONAPUP ). should comprise a collective bargaining unit distinct and different from that consisting of the non-academic employees of the University. non-teaching. and all other employees of the University. considering the dichotomy of interests. Los Baños. in a P osition P aper presented by it. Issues: 1. through its General Counsel. No. that he is not opposing the petition . . that it w as not opposing the University's proferred classification of rank-and file employees." The case w as initiated in the Bureau of Labor Relations by a petition filed by a registered labor union. and other employees performing academic functions. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA In this special civil action of certiorari the University of the Philippines seeks the nullification of the Order of Director P ura Ferrer-Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations holding that "professors. 180. Director Calleja ruled on the matter. teaching and non-teaching. the Court is satisfied that it has been correctly
. Yes. and those in teaching staff with the rank of Assistant Professor or higher. . . managerial or . The Director adjudged that said teachers are rank-and-file employees "qualified to join unions and vote in certification elections. The University is joined in this undertaking by the Solicitor General who "has taken a position not contrary to that of petitioner and. "rank-and-file" personnel. ." The University seasonably moved for reconsideration." filed a comment.236 members — comprising more than 33% of the 9. the University sought further clarification of the coverage of the term. As regards the first issue. and that it aims to unite all UP rank-and-file employees in one union. associate professors and assistant professors (of the University of the Philippines) are . 2. .R. including all its branches" and that there w as no sufficient evidence "to justify the grouping of the non-academic or administrative personnel into an organization unit apart and distinct from that of the academic or teaching personnel. 1990 at the "usual pre-election conference . On the other hand. the University filed a Manifestation seeking the exclusion from the organizational unit of those employees holding supervisory positions among non-academic personnel. it declared its assent to the holding of the election provided the appropriate organizational unit was first clearly defined. . and July. personnel considering the dichotomy of interests.617 persons constituting the non -academic personnel of UP -Diliman. . the "All UP Workers' Union" opposed the University's view. and hence. they. She declared that "the appropriate organizational unit . be represented by only one labor organization. the University stated that it had no objection to the election. 1992 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. together with the so-called non-academic. excluded by law. made of record its view that there should be two (2) unions: one for academic." 2. conditions and rules existing between them. associate professors and assistant professors are included in the definition of high -level employee(s)" in light of Rule I. At a subsequent hearing. who are academic non teaching personnel. asserting that not every employee could properly be embraced within both teaching and non -teaching categories since there are those whose positions are in truth managerial and policy-determining. and that management appear and bring Copies of the corresponding payrolls for January.

O. subject to review and evaluation by the University Academic Personnel Board. authorized the formation of the former set of employees into a separate collective bargaining unit. 'P olicy-determining' refers to policydetermination in university mattes that affect those same matters that may be the subject of negotiation between public sector management and labor. 110 Phil. Our labor laws do not however provide the criteria for determining the proper collective bargaining unit. the "community or mutuality of interests" test has provided the standard in determining the proper constituency of a collective bargaining unit. "Executive Order No. compensation and promotion of members of the academic staff. Court of Industrial Relations. 23. The departmental and college academic personnel committees' functions are purely recommendatory in nature. the Court." A "bargaining unit" has been defined as a group of employees of a given employer. From the foregoing. the Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that two separate
bargaining units should be formed. in that case. associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as exercising such managerial or highly confidential functions as w ould justify their being categorized as "high-level employees" of the institution. 107 Phil. rules and standards respecting selection. comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees. sales and dispensary departments of a cigar and cigarette manufacturing firm perform work which have nothing to do with production and maintenance. supra. composed of deans. the assistant for academic affairs and the chief of personnel. Alhambra Employees' Association (PAFLU). which the collective interest of all the employees. Neither can membership in the University Council elevate the professors to the status of high-level employees.
. 176. As correctly observed by private respondent. Even assuming arguendo that UP professors discharge policy-determining functions through the University Council. 180. 490). 180 and its implementing rules." Hence. still such exercise w ould not qualify them as high-level employees within the context of E. 180 is a law concerning public sector unionism. cigar. which formulates the policies. packing (precintera) and engineering and garage departments. the professors. Within that context. Since then. where casual employees were barred from joining the union of the permanent and regular employees.resolved by the respondent Director of Bureau Relations. unlike those in the raw lead (malalasi). et al. vs. as well as the University's charter and relevant regulations. And this is so because 'the basic test of an asserted bargaining unit's acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights' (Rothenberg on Labor Relations. In Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company. one consisting of regular and permanent employees and another consisting of casual laborers or stevedores. It must therefore be construed within that context. the University of the P hilippines represents the government as an employer. w as reiterated in Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Unit vs. consistent with equity to the employer. The Court further explained that "(t)he test of the grouping is community or mutuality of interests. it is evident that it is the University Academic Personnel Committee. The reason why 'policy-determining' has been laid down as a test in segregating rank-and-file from management is to ensure that those who lay down policies in areas that are still negotiable in public sector collective bargaining do not themselves become part of those employees who seek to change these policies for their collective welfare. The ruling in the Democratic Labor Association case. In light of Executive Order No. cigarette. noting that the employees in the administrative. indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law.